it would be pretty easy to vote everyone out, and vote new people in. States do it all the time.
IE: When Robert C Byrd (D-WV) died, they held a special election, and someone filled the void.

Each state would have a special election, we would vote in new Feds (Sens, Reps) then new state people, then new local people. There would be a cap on how much you could spend to advertise. This would let normal people run, no signatures requirement, a complete fresh state.

This would shake everything up, slow down the corruption, and help peacefully balance the power back to the people. In the same way different #occupys want different things, different states/area would require their newly elected person to focus on different issue, but all and all "voting" people would have the finally say.

These parties are a problem because capitlaism is the problem. They represent those that benefit from this system, the 1%.

Those that are being destroyed by this system need a party of their own, devoted to dismantling capitlaism. I believe that a party that replaces the Deomcrats and the Republicans -- and yes, they must be replaced - will be ineffective unless it puts into place genuine socialist policies aimed at a the expropriation of the banks and corporations, the redistribution of the wealth and the full democratic control of the economy.

Genuine socialism and fascism are opposites. In any case, capitlaism caused the entire collapse to begin with - it has been decades in the making -- and capitalist governments around the world are busy plundering the public treasuries to cover the bad debts of the banks. It is an effort to save the profits of the very rich. Socialism means that social wealth is controlled democratically by the working class.

OK, lets do it, remove them! Who do we replace them with? Will the government function in the mean time? Do we just recall them nationwide en mass and hold new special elections? Can anyone with a party affiliation run in these new elections? Do we bar certain parties from running? Are we trampling on anyones rights by not allowing them to run? A lot more questions seem to emerge here.

Here's a way to get the message across to both parties:
" Hazare has also called for an amendment to the election laws to require that voters always be offered the option of “None of the Above.” When it prevails, parties would have to come up with better candidates."

New York Times, October 30, 2011, Beyond Occupy By BILL KELLER

Now here's a marvelous idea worth importing from India that will fit nicely into American culture of bumper stickers and Twits to get the message across very effectively. The timing is ideal as close to 90% of people disapprove of Congress and there are no viable third party candidates running for office. Just imagine the election night coverage and the headlines next morning announcing the election results - Republican 20%, Democrat 20% , 'None of the Above' 60%. No party will be able to claim a mandate and go on to serving their own special interests. The power will still remain with the people. I am not sure if our constitution or election laws will allow to put 'None of the above" on the ballot to officially tally that. But, our ballots already have a space for a "write in" candidate and exit polls will give a good enough count of "None of the above". 2008 Senate race in Alaska proved that enough people will exercise the "write in" option if energized enough. This is the best way to frustrate the politicians and special interests who bankroll billions to get them above the magic 50% mark. It will show that after spending millions of dollars our politician-emperors have no clothes.